All
Lies, All the Time
May 4, 2002
By Richard Mynick aka RichM
We
all learned in school that democracy cannot survive without
a free press. To drive this lesson home, we were presented
with the notion of a "dictatorship," understood in those days
to be typified by the Soviet Union. In a dictatorship, we
were told, government directly controls the press. The danger
inherent in this arrangement was explained as follows: if
a newspaper in a dictatorship ever dares to criticize the
government, the offending journalists are sent to a gulag.
Thus, power cracks its whip, institutions that set the tone
for public discourse are intimidated, and everyone is kept
in line. The government can never be subjected to critical
review, no matter what it does - and the path to tyranny is
wide open.
We were taught, in comforting contrast, that in the American
system the press is free, so that many diverse viewpoints
may find expression. Journalists may criticize the government
without fear of being summarily arrested. In this way, so
our cheerful theory ran, news organizations can perform their
crucial watchdog function, and government is subjected to
responsible scrutiny. This process, over time, was supposed
to safeguard against misguided government policy and potential
abuse of power.
From the vantage point of 2002, it is apparent that the theory
of the role of the press in American democracy - the theory
that sounded so comforting and admirable to us during our
school years - contained a few flaws. The system breaks down
in the case where the government and the media are both agents
of the same powerful interests. In this case, the entire concept
of "an independent press" is exploded. The press cannot be
a "watchdog," because it is not truly distinct from the forces
animating the government - any more than a left hand can serve
as a "watchdog" over the right hand of the same creature.
What happens when the press and the government function as
two arms of the same creature? The same thing that was feared
in the classic case of the police state: the voice of the
press becomes corrupted. It assumes the tinny, inauthentic
hysterical tone that we associate with the Pravda of the bad
old days. ("Our Great and Wise Leader has proclaimed that
our glorious factories have once again surpassed the goals
of the Five-Year Plan.") The press no longer guards the
public interest, but becomes an instrument of privilege and
power. It blurs issues and spews propaganda. Its voice becomes
shrill as it praises its master, insisting on its own rightness
and glory. That is the American press of 2002 - all lies,
all the time.
With the exception of Bill Moyers on PBS, there is practically
no source or analysis of news on American television that
is worth seeing. Most of the rest is - let's be honest - a
nauseating rude low-minded cesspool. Not only does it have
no value, it is positively injurious to the wisdom and understanding
of those who watch it. The major print media are scarcely
any better, and for precisely the same reason: all of them,
when stripped of their flimsy disguises and superficial differences,
are nothing more than obedient servants of power. They are
the left hand, while the government is the right hand; they
are all one and the same. That is why the media are incapable
of telling the truth about our government and about what is
happening to our society. That is why they are incapable of
discussing any of the burning issues that must be discussed,
upon which the future of our planet depends.
Public discourse in the US is now a rotting edifice. While
it never has been wholly pure, the last few years have greatly
accelerated the corruption. The terminal phase of the process
began when no major US media voice summoned the courage or
integrity to speak out against the Supreme Court's appointment
of George W. Bush as president. There were certainly many
serious observers who immediately recognized that something
profoundly dangerous had occurred. The New York Times
published one (and only one) full-page announcement
from a group of hundreds of law professors across the nation,
candidly expressing their feelings of anguished betrayal at
the Court's decision. But neither the Times itself,
nor any of its prestigious major-circulation brethren, used
its editorial voice to oppose - or even to analyze! - the
decision. None had the principles or courage even to undertake
a careful editorial examination of the potential ways in which
such a decision might prove damaging or antithetical to the
spirit of democracy. Instead, all chose to be silent; to pretend
that nothing much out of the ordinary had transpired. The
path of cowardice was chosen, and the die was cast.
Having shown their true colors that fateful day, it was henceforth
no longer possible for the American media to speak the truth.
Its shameful silence at the blatant hijacking of a presidential
election required a progressively deepening entanglement in
the web of lies. Since the election could no longer be spoken
of as what it in fact was, since the fact dared not be uttered
that the Supreme Court was now just a partisan subsidiary
of the American far right, now all matters touching on those
sensitive subjects, and all matters that grew inexorably from
them, could likewise no longer be called by their true and
proper names. Sixteen short months later, we no longer have
a real democracy in our country. We have a nation of great
military and financial might that pretends to still
be a democracy; that pays empty lip service to the vestigial
trappings and nominal forms of democracy, while behaving with
a unilateral belligerence that is terrifying to the rest of
the world. The American media is organically unable to seriously
criticize George W. Bush, his policies, or his appointments.
They cannot discuss or explicitly identify the forces that
are controlling the trajectory of the nation. They can only
speak with fawning obsequiousness of those powerful forces,
because they are the left hand, while the Bush government
is the right hand, of the same creature. And this creature
would be disturbed, perhaps angered, should it receive too
much direct attention.
In the America that I grew up in, if a politician seriously
proposed that this country commit itself to years of an open-ended
war against enemies that could be defined, undefined, or redefined
as we went along, he would be roundly criticized. To be sure,
he would not be criticized by everyone. The editorial page
of the Wall Street Journal could always be counted
upon to support him, as could the National Review.
But there would also be a free and strong liberal press, and
a worthy opposition party, that would rise together with pride
and dignity to denounce and staunchly oppose in principled
fashion the destructive insanity of endless war against amorphous
phantoms, now offered to the public as the major political
project of this country. But the America I grew up in no longer
exists. There is no longer a free press with pride, dignity,
and principles. There is no longer a real opposition party.
Our institutions are so thoroughly corrupt that they are too
frightened even to speak of the dimensions or systemic nature
of this corruption. All mention of the myriad tentacles of
corruption must be swept quickly under the rug and
papered over with a layer of fatuous happy-talk - or the whole
structure will come crashing down.
If the government of the United States wants to destroy every
international treaty, to ignore the threat of global warming,
to build military bases all over Central Asia under the pretext
of "fighting a war against terrorism," and to define its principle
role in the world by its open-ended "war" - there is no one
on television that will say a word against it. The editorial
page of the New York Times will not criticize it, nor
will the Washington Post. Like the obedient fawning
sycophants that they've become, they will lamely assert that
we are "protecting our freedom," or some such nonsense. And
if, by chance, an eminently forgettable actor from a mindless
25-year old TV series is suddenly arrested on suspicion of
murdering his wife, it is only to be expected that the media
coverage of this phenomenally insignificant event will be
massive, easily dwarfing discussion of every other issue.
There will be "interviews" on Larry King, with "experts" who
won their spurs during the frenzy of the O.J. Simpson trial.
There will be no time or energy left for discussion of Enron,
and the ways in which it was so disturbingly able to have
its many friends in Congress pass laws and regulations and
make appointments to its liking. This is the America of 2002
- no discussion of real issues, and hysterical "coverage"
of non-issues. That which must be spoken about, because
it's so important, cannot be spoken about, because
it's too threatening to the powers controlling the system.
If there is a sudden coup d'etat in oil-producing Venezuela
carried out by the military and big business interests, and
the government of the United States speaks approvingly of
the coup, the New York Times will not criticize it.
Far from it. No, the Times chortles happily that "a
would-be dictator" has been deposed, and "Venezuelan democracy
is no longer threatened." The US will of course continue to
self-righteously style itself the world's great protector
of democracy. The New York Times and the US government
are two hands of the same master. They speak the same language.
In this language, the twice-elected Venezuelan president is
a "would-be dictator," while the military and US-friendly
oil executives that seize power merely "intervene" to save
democracy. The irony of these appellations goes largely unnoticed.
The short-lived Venezuelan coup is a vivid demonstration
that neither the government nor the media of today's United
States "stands for democracy." They stand, rather, for whatever
expediency seems likely to benefit American oil policy. To
maintain the pretense of standing for lofty principle, when
the reality is so rank and ignoble, is characteristic of decrepit,
decaying political institutions.
Our old media rules went something like this: "the free press
should act as a watchdog to monitor the government." Our modernized
rules work more like this: the media must not discuss any
subject in such a way that it's uncomfortable or threatening
to moneyed power. It must not examine the type of corruption
that exists when government becomes the servant of corporate
influence. If a corporation buys the allegiance of a slew
of congressmen, this must not be examined. But if a Democratic
congressman has an affair with a young woman, this must be
investigated in excruciating detail. If the Pentagon buys
tens of billions of dollars of weapons that even Rumsfeld
said won't work, from companies closely linked to the ruling
right wing government, this must not be discussed. It's not
polite. If Wall Street touts the stock of various companies
on what later proves to be totally fraudulent grounds, this
may be mentioned, but not in a way that raises penetrating
questions about the breadth of Wall Street corruption. If
CEO's earn 450 times what average employees earn, this inequality's
rationale may not be explored in too high-profile a manner
- it's unattractive.
Serious money doesn't care for that kind of publicity. If
the federal budget includes a $48 billion increase in defense
spending, this fact may be reported, but the implications
may not be examined with any persistence or vigor. If hundreds
of billions are earmarked for a missile defense system that
will never work - thus depriving all manner of health, education,
housing, and other social programs of funds - this issue too,
cannot be seriously discussed. It may be mentioned, briefly
and in low-key fashion, but not pursued with the same relentless
intensity that a Democratic congressman's extramarital affair
would surely attract. Not with the same ferocious high-megawatt
24/7 coverage that the TV has-been's murder case would attract.
If every government agency originally chartered to oversee
compliance with rules for clean air and water is now fully
staffed by Bush appointees - loyal agents, one and all, of
the most notorious and powerful corporate polluters, who in
turn were all big Bush campaign contributors - this too, can
unfortunately not be carefully scrutinized. Not under the
new rules. This is how the once-proud American "free press"
now operates. It cringes at the feet of its master, more fearful
of offending, than interested in speaking the truth.
Are there leading Republican congressmen with close ties
to white supremacist groups? Yes, quite a few of them - but
this is an uncomfortable topic; better that the media ignore
it. Did the new director of Bush's "Office for Democracy and
Human Rights" plead guilty to lying to Congress under oath
in the Iran-Contra affair? Yes, but let's overlook that; why
be divisive in this "time of war?" Is the new US ambassador
to the United Nations another Iran-Contra criminal? Yes, but
better not to focus on that unattractive detail. Is the new
Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs
closely linked to the terrorist bombing of a passenger jetliner?
Yes, but it was only a Cuban jetliner, so why raise
a fuss? Let's just refer to him respectfully as "Mr. Reich"
in mainstream coverage, and ignore the furtiveness with which
the White House appointed all three of these men while Congress
was in recess, so as to avoid open confirmation hearings and
the attendant adverse publicity.
If the president himself is the financial creation of the
Enron Corporation, if most of the people in his administration
come from Enron, consulted for Enron, and invested heavily
in Enron, and if his administration makes appointments and
passes legislation favorable to Enron, that allows Enron to
loot hundreds of billions of dollars from the state of California,
its own employees and shareholders, and the United States
Treasury, you might think that this would amount to a bit
of a scandal. You would be wrong. In the United States of
2002, it's not a scandal unless the corporate media says it's
a scandal, and they will not call something a scandal if it
centers on the ability of large corporations to procure gargantuan
favors from government. It is only a scandal if a member of
the political party that's less than 100 percent devoted to
granting corporations their every whim is caught doing something
wrong. (Of course, strictly speaking, it is not really necessary
that he/she actually be caught doing something wrong; it is
only necessary that he is repeatedly said to have done
something wrong. Being repeatedly said to have done
something wrong is fully sufficient cause for the corporate
media to declare the matter a scandal of the highest megawattage;
"in-depth interviews" with "experts" on Larry King will quickly
follow.)
Was the terrorist attack of 9-11 important? Oh, yes, just
give the media a moment, and they'll be glad to solemnly assure
you that the Bush regime's mammoth giveaways to defense contractors
and its attacks on civil liberties and its turning our entire
society into a giant war machine - all this is amply justified
by the outrages of 9-11. But, if the attacks were important
enough to justify all that, aren't they important enough to
be fully investigated by Congress? And didn't the president
himself take steps to make sure that there would be no
serious congressional investigation of the intelligence lapses
leading to 9-11? Here, one can confidently expect the media
to suffer a bout of sudden amnesia, regarding the importance
of 9-11. For these are the kinds of questions that servants
of power will not pursue.
In the America I grew up in, people would have noticed that
the Bill of Rights was being blatantly violated by the USA
PATRIOT Act. People would have noticed that hundreds of persons
arrested last fall are still in jail with no charges being
filed, and that the US Attorney General told a panel of senators
in December that if they had any serious questions about what
the government was doing, they were just "giving comfort to
the enemy." People would have noticed the administration's
new "Nuclear Posture Review" that was released in March, putting
the world on notice that the United States might well be expected
to use "battlefield" nuclear weapons in its upcoming war against
Iraq. People would have noticed the absurdity of a vice president
claiming to be upholding some lofty principle of office, by
keeping secret the details of how he designed our national
energy policy together with a bunch of rich cronies -- even
though he supposedly works for us, and we thus have
a right to know everything about how that policy was
made. People would have noticed these things because some
degree of vibrant political awareness was part of the America
that I grew up in. The media was part of that -- not all the
media, to be sure, but enough of them to make a difference.
But in the new America, the one born on 12/12/00, such things
are barely noticed and quickly forgotten. This is because
the media is the social organ charged with conducting the
public discourse, and it is no longer anything but the left
hand, while the Bush regime is the right hand, of the same
creature. In this America, one must confidently expect dictators
who support us to be described in leading newspapers as "defenders
of democracy," while popularly-elected foreign presidents
who criticize us are termed "would-be dictators." We can confidently
expect any news story whose essence centers on corruption
in high places to be downplayed, deflected, and marginalized.
We must expect that the transfer of the hundreds of billions
of federal budget dollars now stuffing the maw of defense
contractors - not augmenting the security of the American
people but probably decreasing it, as US military aggression
inevitably inflames world resentments - will receive far less
media attention than the combination of Al Gore's beard, Gwyneth's
dress at the Oscars, and the TV has-been's murder trial. We
can now look forward to the next media extravaganza - the
new and improved all-channel "Demonization of Saddam Hussein"
campaign, opening soon on a TV screen near you, which will
surely whip up the fervor necessary to bomb and kill a hundred
thousand people or so, possibly with nuclear weapons. The
cheerleading machinery will ramp to proper pitch by tirelessly
flogging the lofty moral pretext ("protecting us from Saddam's
weapons of mass destruction") - and scarcely a word will be
said about oil.
My teachers were exactly right, back in the old America that
I knew, loved, and was so proud of - democracy cannot survive
without a free press.
|